4 ms·
If it works equally well for Uber or Lyft or WeWork, then trying to shoehorn Theranos in since it's a spectacular fraud that doesn't really fit the definition w
by jdminhbg 6y ago
If it works equally well for Uber or Lyft or WeWork, then trying to shoehorn Theranos in since it's a spectacular fraud that doesn't really fit the definition was a bad decision.
That's rarely a sign of a piece that makes a strong argument.
- disgruntledphd2 6y agoThe article covered WeWork much, much more extensively than Theranos. I know its against the guidelines, but did you read the article?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jdminhbg 6y agoTrying to shoehorn in Theranos does not preclude covering WeWork, so I'm not sure how you read my comment to imply that it did.
- Apocryphon 6y agoTheranos is mentioned three times in the article, and always in the company of more cogent examples of VC-funded companies- Juicero, Uber, and WeWork. The quibbling over Theranos really does look like a distraction away from the main points of the article.